Answer:
Basically when you are under arrest you lose certain rights (Right too remain silent etc etc.) That's an example of having your rights terminated.
Explanation:
This case will need to be tried at least in a federal and a transnational or international court. Moreover, this will involve both national and international jurisdictions.
In law, there are three main types of courts:
- Constitutional courts.
- Federal courts.
- Transnational courts.
Each of these applies the jurisdiction of the same level. For example, a constitutional court will apply the constitutional laws and specific state laws.
In the case presented, two of these courts are required:
- Federal court: This is necessary because the crime was perpetrated in the U.S. territory, and therefore criminals are judged under U.S. Federal law.
- Transnational court: Considering the pirates might not be American, and therefore there are at least 2 countries involved, it is necessary to consider the case under international maritime laws.
Learn more about law in: brainly.com/question/6590381
Answer: No they should not be allowed
Explanation:
Judges can easily be biased to the situation and set a punishment that could unfair/wrong.
No political power can supersede it, and the independent judiciary, rather than the elected legislature, serves as its interpreter. Far from a threat to popular will, a separate judicial branch was designed to guarantee democratic freedoms by preventing the concentration of power in government.
Answer:
No, as hearsay not within any exception.
Explanation:
(B) The sketch is inadmissible on hearsay grounds. Under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules, prior identification can be admissible, and the sketch could be deemed a prior identification. However, to be admissible, the witness must be there to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination. The witness in this case is unavailable; hence, this exception does not apply. (D) is therefore incorrect. (A) applies to documentary evidence and has no relevance to this question. (C) is likewise not applicable, because this exception applies only to information within the personal knowledge of the public employee. In this case, the public employee gained the knowledge from the hearsay statements of an absent witness.
